next »

[dusan]

That's an unfounded argument.

Assume, as an example, A = 1 [mb/s]. Using the simplified formula we would obtain X = 1 [mb/s] regardless of the downlink (B).

Using the original formula, with several possible downlinks B = 1, 2, 5, 10, 20 [mb/s] we have X = 0.0558, 0.0972, 0.2022, 0.3521, 0.6130 [mb/s], respectively.

Relative error of the simplified formula against the original is 1692%, 929%, 395%, 184%, 63%, respectively. So, the simplified formula is not 10%-tolerated.

The ratio of X in the last case (B=20) against X in the first case (B=1) is 0.6130/0.0558 = 1099%. This is big enough to see that no single value of X suits both the cases and, consequently, formulas computing such X can never be tolerated.

[Nostradamus]

Hmm... I don't understand a shit, hehe hehe

I like to setup traffic sharper with max 25/10 mbit for all IP's in this IP Range 192.168.100.100-192.168.100.111 with full max speed to all protocols, like P2P, everything. And give those users in this IP Range 192.168.100.112-192.168.100.125 max 10/5 mbit with low priority of P2P user and other traffic use. But still have 100mbit speed on LAN(local network, i have a server).
Please don't come with those formulas, because i don't understand:) I need pictures, hehe

Cheers 

[heiko]

Do you have a calculator?

[sullrich]

Hmm... I don't understand a shit, hehe hehe

I like to setup traffic sharper with max 25/10 mbit for all IP's in this IP Range 192.168.100.100-192.168.100.111 with full max speed to all protocols, like P2P, everything. And give those users in this IP Range 192.168.100.112-192.168.100.125 max 10/5 mbit with low priority of P2P user and other traffic use. But still have 100mbit speed on LAN(local network, i have a server).
Please don't come with those formulas, because i don't understand:) I need pictures, hehe

Cheers 

Please do not hijack this conversation.  If you do not understand then simply ignore!

[dusan]

I like to setup traffic sharper with max 25/10 mbit for all IP's in this IP Range 192.168.100.100-192.168.100.111 with full max speed to all protocols, like P2P, everything.

Let's call it Range1.

And give those users in this IP Range 192.168.100.112-192.168.100.125 max 10/5 mbit with low priority of P2P user and other traffic use.

Let's call it Range2.

But still have 100mbit speed on LAN(local network, i have a server).

Please don't come with those formulas, because i don't understand:) I need pictures, hehe
Cheers

Well here are some pictures.

Link hiearchy:

----Mainlink
        |
        +----Range1 (10,25) mb/s
        |
        +----Range2 (5,10) mb/s


Queue hiearchy:

----qWANroot
        |
        +----Range1'qWANroot 10 mb/s
        |      |
        |      +----Range1'qWANack
        |      |
        |      +---- ...
        |
        +----Range2'qWANroot 5 mb/s
               |
               +----Range2'qWANack
               |
               +---- ...

----qLANroot
        |
        +----Range1'qLANroot 25 mb/s
        |      |
        |      +----Range1'qLANack
        |      |
        |      +---- ...
        |
        +----Range2'qLANroot 10 mb/s
               |
               +----Range2'qLANack
               |
               +---- ...

For Range2 you don't need to use the formula since the required bandwidths are pre-calculated in the table. The column B/A means how many times is downlink faster than uplink. For Range2 it is 10/5 = 2, so have a look at row 2:

-The X/A is the required bandwidth of qWANack, i.e. 9.72%.

-The Y/B is the required bandwidth of qLANack, i.e. 3.2%.

For Range1, B/A = 25/10 = 2.5 which is not listed in the table. If you don't use the formula then you'll have to guess the required bandwidths from the nearest rows (2 and 3) of the table. Thus qWANack should be something between 9.72% and 13.44%, and qLANack should be something between 3.2% and 2.32%.

Hope it helps.

[Nostradamus]

@dusan.

Thank you very very much You are the man

Cheers

[Master One]

Looks more like black magic to me too. Has any of this already been implemented in 1.2-RELEASE? I just run the wizard, and this is what came out:

Code:

          0     No    830Kb qwanRoot
          0  No 14552Kb qlanRoot
          1  Yes 1 %    qwandef
          1  Yes 1 %    qlandef
ACK       7  No 25 %    qwanacks
ACK       7  No 25 %    qlanacks
          7  No 25 %    qVOIPUp
          7  No 25 %    qVOIPDown
RED ECN   1  No 1 %    qP2PUp
RED ECN   1  No 1 %    qP2PDown 

I just changed qwanacks to 65%. No idea, if that's any good yet.

[ermal]

As Scott said in some posts before ask your question in another thread.

The answer to your question is a plain NO.

Remember that this is just a recommendation and not suitable to every case.

Ermal